printing from double-x vs printing from tri-x

I was wondering what would give better end results in general: shooting on double-x and making prints from the camera negative or shooting tri-x reversal (or plus-x reversal if I can find some) and making an interneg with 7234 and then making release prints from that. How would the end prints of these two workflows differ? I understand that the reversal-interneg-release print route has an additional print generation which would add grain but I would be able to avoid using double-x which I hear is a very grainy stock.

I was wondering what would give better end results in general: shooting on double-x and making prints from the camera negative or shooting tri-x reversal (or plus-x reversal if I can find some) and making an interneg with 7234 and then making release prints from that. How would the end prints of these two workflows differ? I understand that the reversal-interneg-release print route has an additional print generation which would add grain but I would be able to avoid using double-x which I hear is a very grainy stock.

thanks,chris

if you shoot on reversal (7266 or 7265), you can optically blow it up to 35mm interneg, can you not? I would think this route would give you the best image quality. have you tested? you will really have to watch the shadow detail with the reversal stock, that is why going directly up to 35 and skipping the 16mm internegative will yield the best possible image.

I wish I could but the optical printer I have access to is 16mm only and getting 35mm prints made at a lab is probably too costly. I guess I'm asking which is grainier: a first generation print made from double-x or a second generation print made from tri-x reversal? you're right though, I should probably just do some tests.